The proximity concept is used in many different ways in the literature. These dimensions of proximity are, however, defined and measured in many different (sometimes even contradictory) ways, show large amounts of overlap, and often are under-or overspecified. The goal of this paper is to specify the different dimensions of proximity relevant in inter-organizational collaboration more precisely and to provide definitions of these dimensions. The research presented contributes to reducing the ambiguity of the proximity concept as used in the literature.Based on the above, the following research question is addressed in this paper: 'Which dimensions of proximity are relevant in inter-organizational collaboration and how are they defined?' A systematic literature review is presented in order to disentangle the dimensions of the proximity concept. Based on this literature review, three dimensions of proximity relevant in inter-organizational collaboration are distinguished: geographical proximity, organizational proximity and technological proximity. Examples (case studies) from the literature are used to illustrate the current conceptual ambiguity as well as to clarify how the proposed dimensions of proximity reduce this conceptual ambiguity.

No abstract

In this paper we test whether the use of a set of technology management tools (TM-tools), a specification of alliance portfolio capability, influences the relationship between alliance portfolio diversity and a firm's innovation outcomes. With this model, we add to the theoretical literature on the performance effects of alliance portfolio diversity and specific contingencies allowing to appropriate benefits from this diversity.Based on a sample of South African firms, we first confirm the inverted U-shaped relation between alliance portfolio diversity and a firm's innovation outcomes found by earlier research. We also show that the shape of this inverted-U differs for incremental and radical innovation outcomes. Subsequently, we test the moderating effect of the use of TM-tools on this relationship, for which find a strong positive moderating effect. In particular, for firms intensively using TM-tools, the negative effect of high levels of alliance portfolio diversity on innovation outcomes turns into a positive effect. This suggests that the use of formal technology management practices is beneficial to manage highly diverse alliance portfolios.

In this paper, we aim to reduce the ambiguity surrounding the agglomeration-performance relationship. We do so by taking firm-level and agglomeration-level heterogeneity into account simultaneously and focusing on the interactions between these two levels of analysis in explaining the effect of agglomeration on firm performance. Our central argument is that while some firms will benefit from agglomeration, others will be harmed by it. To assess our claims, we estimate multilevel models on firms' productivity with nonlinear interaction effects between the agglomeration-level (urbanization, specialization, and knowledge intensity) and firm-level variables (size, internal knowledge base, and face-to-face contacts) using data from a sample of Dutch firms. Our results show that the effects of different dimensions of agglomeration on firm performance are strongly and nonlinearly moderated by firm characteristics. Moreover, the moderation effect is not uniform across the different agglomeration dimensions.

In this paper, we study to what extent inconsistent feedback signals about performance affect firm adaptive behavior in terms of changes made to research-and-development (R&D) investments. We argue that inconsistency in performance feedback-based on discrepancies between two distinct performance signals-affects the degree to which such investments will be changed. Our aim is to show that accounting for inconsistent performance feedback is necessary as predictions for the direction of change in R&D investments based on the individual performance feedback signals are contradictory. Furthermore, we contribute by proposing a holistic consideration mechanism as an alternative to the selective attention mechanism previously applied to inconsistent performance feedback. Our findings show that the impact of inconsistency depends on the exact configuration of the underlying performance feedback signal discrepancies. While consistently negative performance feedback signals would amplify their impact in stimulating increased R&D investments, inconsistent performance feedback signals created more nuanced effects. Having lower performance compared to an industry-based peer group-despite doing well compared to the previous year-made firms decrease their R&D investments. For the Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Patrick M. Wright.